said by zxt :

Looks like Kobe did something to him real bad to hate Kobe this much. I am not sure what part of "paying off is better business wise" rather than fighting it out in court.

Again, people with money have advisers and for sure they weigh everything before deciding not to fight it in court.

Even the OJ example won't let him change his mind. So be it...let's move on.

said by Eagles LoveR :

Is this guy stupid? OJ went to court and was found innocent and most people still think he is guilty of the crime... whats to say Kobe would be any different? going to court would have been worse because he would be in the news NONSTOP and having to mess with his NBA career which is still on the rise... If Kobe went to court in my opinion it would be because he was guilty and try to pull an OJ to protect his "rep"

said by Chillin :

So in my eyes, my opinion stands.

said by fatness :

People with fame, power, and money see it differently than most of us regular people. They see things in terms of inconveniences, not absolutes. The one guy I can think of who decided to do what you're saying is Roger Clemens, and in doing so (suing McNamee to bolster his reputation) he did much more harm to himself than good.

said by Moorecards :

Catch -22
Not saying OJ is guilty or not, but by the eyes of the courts, he is innocent, yet alot still says he is guilty. So him going to court and fighting the charges to protect his reputation didn't do him any good. I think in some cases, it might be best to payoff and others not.

said by rockotman :

Well therein lies the difference in our opinions. I bet it is #1. So be it. We disagree.

It clearly does not imply guilt, either. And I beg to differ. I don't know what most people on this planet would say, and I don't think that you do either. And I don't see how my ignoring what you think other people might think has any bearing on the subject. If I make the opposite assertion, then accuse you of ignoring that, does that prove my point? Of course not. So once again, your logic is flawed. Your thoughts do not prove guilt or innocence. All that matters are the facts, and they will never be truly known.

Again, a strawman argument. What does the OJ murder trial have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. His being found innocent in a criminal trial, but accountable in a civil trial is not even remotely similar in nature. If you commit a crime but get away with it, does that mean that if I am suspected of commiting a crime, I am automatically guilty? Wow. Talk about pretzel logic.

said by Chillin :

Next you will tell us OJ is innocent. LOL.

said by Chillin :


Which do you think is more common?

1. Person/Business is really innocent and just doesn't want to goto court to "save" money.

2. Person/Business is really guilty to some degree or another, but they can keep it out of court for x money which would be less of a hit to their "career/business" over being found guilty or the truth coming out.

I bet its #2 to be more likely. Kobe Bryant has tons of money, I doubt he was looking to save money. He was looking to save the truth coming out.

said by Chillin :

Sure people and companies pay people off all the time, who are you to decide what implies guilt? It clearly doesn't imply they are innocent either. Most people on this planet would probably say that it does imply some sort of guilt, or a situation that would expose some other truth that person/company does not want public. Its funny you over look that.

said by Chillin :

Next you will tell us OJ is innocent. LOL.

said by Chillin :

Sorry but one thing I would deffend to the end, is my reputation, with his kind of money, I would have took her ass to court 100 times if needed if I really didn't do it.

said by rockotman :

And what makes you think that he did lie. Sure, he is unfaithful. If I was his father-in-law, I would kick his ass. But he lied in an attempt to save his marriage; it is the first response most men would have when faced with getting busted cheating.

As far as lying to his wife inferring that he lying about more, your logic is faulted. Statement A being a lie does not automatically make statement B a lie. Have you ever told a lie? If the answer is no, then you are better than everyone else in this world. If you ever did tell a lie, does that make everything else that you have ever told anyone a lie? If you lied once, should I automatically assume that every thing else you ever said is a lie?

As far as paying off as opposed to dragging it out, people and corporations do it all the time. It does not imply guilt. It implies good business sense. It is a business decision, as the cost of fighting it are not worth the cost of settling. If she demands $1M, and will settle for $200K, while the cost of fighting the $1M lawsuit has a 50% chance of exceeding $400K in legal fees and time lost, then paying the $200K makes business sense.

said by rockotman :

And what makes you think that he did lie. Sure, he is unfaithful. If I was his father-in-law, I would kick his ass. But he lied in an attempt to save his marriage; it is the first response most men would have when faced with getting busted cheating.

As far as lying to his wife inferring that he lying about more, your logic is faulted. Statement A being a lie does not automatically make statement B a lie. Have you ever told a lie? If the answer is no, then you are better than everyone else in this world. If you ever did tell a lie, does that make everything else that you have ever told anyone a lie? If you lied once, should I automatically assume that every thing else you ever said is a lie?

As far as paying off as opposed to dragging it out, people and corporations do it all the time. It does not imply guilt. It implies good business sense. It is a business decision, as the cost of fighting it are not worth the cost of settling. If she demands $1M, and will settle for $200K, while the cost of fighting the $1M lawsuit has a 50% chance of exceeding $400K in legal fees and time lost, then paying the $200K makes business sense.

said by Chillin :

I didn't say it did. But paying off someone CERTAINLY points to being guilty of something. Maybe he did, maybe he did less then she claims, its most likely something not totally legal went down.

It is clear he DID have sex with her, that makes him a liar to his wife right out the gate, so what makes you think he wouldn't lie to the rest of the world and say "he didn't rape her". If he will lie to his own wife the rest of us are fair game.

said by rockotman :

And it certainly does not mean he is guilty.

said by Chillin :

Paying her off certainly does NOT mean he IS innocent.

said by zaldy :

Again, Kobe paying off the girl doesn't mean anything. Look at Eagles Lover's reply. Paying off is better in Kobe's case even if he's innocent.

said by Chillin :

I didn't say that all people that pay off accusers are guilty. You have a serious problem with context. I said, I always pay off people when I didn't do it.

Meaning SOME PEOPLE DO pay off people because they DID do it or did the crime to some smaller degree.

Fact is YOU DO NOT KNOW. So given that we BOTH know that that much and he paid her off. I have zero reason to believe he DIDN'T rape her or something similar. If he was a man and didn't do it, he should have took it to court. With his money he could have been proven innocent even if wasn't probably. See: OJ.

said by fatness :

Roberto Clemente
Warrick Dunn

said by Chillin :

I didn't say that all people that pay off accusers are guilty. You have a serious problem with context. I said, I always pay off people when I didn't do it.

Meaning SOME PEOPLE DO pay off people because they DID do it or did the crime to some smaller degree.

Fact is YOU DO NOT KNOW. So given that we BOTH know that that much and he paid her off. I have zero reason to believe he DIDN'T rape her or something similar. If he was a man and didn't do it, he should have took it to court. With his money he could have been proven innocent even if wasn't probably. See: OJ.

said by ariesguy :

Curious.. Who are the non-douches?

said by zaldy :

My last reply was pertaining to this post of yours. You are assuming when people pay somebody off then they're guilty already. Most people with money to burn just do that because it's actually better (and sometimes cheaper) than having them to attend the proceedings.

said by Chillin :

I dunno about you, but I always pay people off when I didn't do it. Many people would agree he likely did something very questionable with that girl... its not a shocker you wouldn't. You are blinded by the love you have for this man.

said by Mats :



I just prefer to like athletes who dont act like douches.

said by zaldy :

In that case let's get rid of the courts because they're no use. We can all tell if the suspect is guilty or not. We can be the judge and the jury. The hell with "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

said by The Dv8or :

Yeah, I hear screwing the help in Colorado resorts is the model dad/husband behavior.

said by 57721182 :

None of us are perfect, and I believe Kobe is a great basketball player, dad, and husband.

said by zaldy :

Did he? Last time I've checked he's isn't convicted with rape. How about innocent until proven guilty?

said by The Dv8or :

One may say that they don't buy products or services based on commercials and endorsers, but there's a very advanced psychology in advertising, and the subliminal messages being passed have a lot larger effect than a person realizes. Name recognition is major, and with an aggressive ad campaign, the company is basically building a visual and mental relationship with you.

said by Chillin :

Imagine if he hadn't raped a white chick. He'd have more endorsements.

said by Chillin :

Imagine if he hadn't raped a white chick. He'd have more endorsements.

said by zaldy :

I guess then Shaq wasn't that marketable at all. I've asked a few co workers who likes to watch NBA too to name a few NBA players they know that has his own shoe. Jordan was the first answer most of the time. Kobe's name was mentioned 4 out of 5. Shaq was never mentioned.

I therefore conclude more people knew Kobe's line of shoe than Shaq's. So maybe Kobe is more marketable then?

said by The Dv8or :

Because Reebok was trying to push a logo that would hopefully be the most recognizable logo associated with a specific player. Everyone knew the Jordan logo, and Reebok wanted to counter.

As for how Forbes crunched these numbers, and why they're so drastically different from SI's numbers, I couldnt answer that until I see who used what formula.

said by zaldy :

Also how can a (Shaq) Reebok logo replaced a (Jordan) Nike logo?

said by The Dv8or :

If you cant understand why Shaq is twelve times more marketable than Kobe, then you're clearly blinding yourself to Shaq's charisma. And by the way, Shaq had his own shoe years before Kobe had one. As a matter of fact, Reebok was trying to market a Shaq logo to replace the Air Jordan logo when Jordan retired. You clearly are a young child, seeing how you dont remember these things.

said by The Dv8or :

If you cant understand why Shaq is twelve times more marketable than Kobe, then you're clearly blinding yourself to Shaq's charisma.

said by The Dv8or :

If you cant understand why Shaq is twelve times more marketable than Kobe, then you're clearly blinding yourself to Shaq's charisma. And by the way, Shaq had his own shoe years before Kobe had one. As a matter of fact, Reebok was trying to market a Shaq logo to replace the Air Jordan logo when Jordan retired. You clearly are a young child, seeing how you dont remember these things.

said by P Ness :

golf has it 100% right

your earnings/salary is based purely on your PERFORMANCE.

tiger can go into a duval like slump and make 42k a year if he plays badly.

and the endorsements are a reflections of how well he does and can generate money

to pay someone 33 million a year even if he bats 232 and hits 1 homer run is retarded.....if he does this poorly his salary should be down to 3 dollars

that is one of the reasons why people get upset at baseball and not golf earnings

said by zaldy :

I can't see why Shaq is more marketable than Kobe. Kobe has his own shoe right? Does shaq has his? It's an honest question.

said by The Dv8or :

Looking at the list posted here, there's an adding error for Shaq. Either way, I can believe that Shaq would earn more because he's a much more marketable commodity than Kobe ever was, pre or post-rape.

said by zaldy :

I don't remember seeing Iverson played the just concluded NBA season and yet he's up there...earning more (salary) than Kobe.

said by dogma :

Are our individual lives so pathetic, that the only way we find our personal self-pride, self-dignity and self-esteem is by living vicariously through our gladiators?

said by The Dv8or :

The impact will be less on the NBA, NHL, and NFL than the MLB because of the salary caps in place, but there will be an effect.

said by The Dv8or :

SO SO SO not the case! The NFL laid off a number of front office staff. Tom Hicks' fortune is in the shitter, and he needs to sell off the Rangers. There's the other examples I gave earlier. NASCAR has lost major sponsorship deals, and with GM in the shitter, they're looking to make a deal with a foreign engine maker. The Detroit Tigers lost their 2nd largest sponsor. And thats just off the top of my head.

said by dogma :

The marquee professional sports products [NFL/MLB/NBA/NASCAR] look to be recession resistant.

said by zxt :

I can't believe Shaq and Garnett beat Kobe on total earnings.

said by dogma :

Moreover, Americans personal income has been falling as well, however it seems professional athlete/entertainer incomes are increasing.

said by Tex Longhorn :

I think I heard something about this in the last year.

said by The Dv8or :

There's plenty of Wall Street phenoms pulling down 9 figure paychecks that no one talks about, not to mention the CEOs who get shitloads of stock options.